Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (57115)	10/5/1999 1:14:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

Assertion is not argument. No, I didn't see that TV program. Without reading it, I can say that I am not a fan of Morris's book either as history or fiction. I do not like combos, and do not like the precedent. The book contains some factual material, however, as well as flights of literary fancy. I don't want to change the subject from Ronald Reagan to Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, though I can see why you might; but I must say that I hope you will provide an example of anyone else on earth who has put in print the opinion that L-H is a "left wing ideologue." I believe that you, personally, must be the only one who holds that view. CL-H is the most apolitical reviewer the NYT has ever had. Please quote or cite anything that controverts this universal opinion about CL-H's book reviews. But particularly, please quote anything in CL-H's review of the Morris book that isn't of a literary nature. As I recall it, the review was entirely focused on the legitimacy of Morris's (dubious, in my view) literary innovation-- incorporating himself as a fictional character in a biographical narrative. A striking attribute of the review, in fact, if I have not simply forgotten something, was that no political questions were addressed. Did you find something political in CL-H's review? Something that demonstrates your radical characterization of him? With whose movies did Reagan confuse reality? To what scene was Reagan referring when he told this story during his 1976 primary campaign against Gerald Ford: When the first bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor, there was great segregation in the military forces. In WWII this was corrected... One great story that I think of at the time, that reveals a change was occurring, was when the Japanese dropped the bomb [sic] on Pearl Harbor there was a Negro sailor whose total duties involved kitchen-type duties... He cradled a machine gun in his arms... and stood on the end of a pier blazing away at Japanese airplanes that were coming down and strafing him and that [segregation] was all changed. Garry Wills, in the only book I happen to have here on Reagan, Reagan's America, writes, of the above story told by the President: "Reporters pointed out that segregation persisted until Trumen abolished it in 1948, three years after the war, but Reagan shook his head and said he did not believe them. Later, he repeated his conviction that the story was true to Lou Cannon, significantly saying, 'I remember the scene. It was very powerful.' Where did he remember the scene from? He was not at Pearl Harbor. No such combat footage exists... Reagan is remembering a movie he saw, or an image he created cinematically in his own mind, perhaps using scenes like that from Air Force, (1943), where John Garfield, ... cradles his machine gun and shoots a Japanese plane out of the sky." I have read other quotations of Reagan in which he confused cinema with life, but as I said, this is the only book I have here, so I can't cite other examples. Maybe someone else can. Where did he remember the scene from, Zoltan? He was not at Pearl Harbor. <<<You are wrong, but that is not unexpected as you are not known to be astute. You are most likely delusional.>>> That's not nice, Zoltan.